Mitt Romney is not running against Barack Hussein Obama.
Governor Romney is running against a liberal media complex — Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” — and Barack Hussein Obama.
Liberal journalists are not journalists. They are Democrat campaign workers. In domestic policy the media are advocates for the grim European welfare state. In foreign policy, liberal journalists are appeasers, anxious to shrink America’s military power and allow imperialist Islam — see under: Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, etc. — to have its way.
Such are the intellectual fruits of multiculturalism and moral equivalence.
Democrat pollster Pat Caddell delivered a scathing critique of the mainstream liberal media to Accuracy In Media, in which he labeled the current professional mode of liberal reporters as an “enemy of the American people.”
For those who pay attention, Caddell’s analysis is hardly original or a shock. But that this simple truth comes from an orthodox Democrat gives it a measure of credibility that would not be found when the same message is delivered by, oh, say, Seraphic Secret.
The press’s job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power. When they desert those ramparts and go to serve—to decide that they will now become an active participants—when they decide that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people. And it is a threat to the very future of this country if…we allow this stuff to go on, and…we’ve crossed a whole new and frightening slide on the slippery slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked about.
You can watch Caddell’s entire talk, “The Audacity of Corruption,” here, with full transcript. It is riveting and sobering.
Seems to me that there are also questions of fiduciary responsibility here. Almost all of these media enterprises are either themselves public corporations, or are entities owned by public corporations. Public corporations are supposed to act in the interests of their shareholders, not in support of the personal political beliefs of certain executives.
Strong expressions of *editorial* opinion are of course traditional and appropriate; however, when *news* coverage is so slanted as to drive customers away and reduce the long-term value of the enterprise….How is that different, morally speaking, from embezzling money and giving it as political contributions to one’s favored candidates?
Of course if you confront these people on their bias you get denials. Dennis Prager said something today I thought was thought-provoking – on bias. That Fox News makes less an effort at having reporting to the right than MS-NBC does at left Bias.
These networks are all jealous and envious of Fox News – you’d think they’d ponder what they could improve on?
I’,m afraid I have almost a visceral hatred of these “news” organizations – and am taking the attitude that tonight I can finally see something more or less unfiltered by the same people moderating it tonight.
Although a valid question posed – can Jim Lehrer be neutral towards Romney when he wants to cut funding to PBS?
Question to ponder tonight – and the cynic in me will proclaim that we will see some bias in the questioning – but it will be the best we can get.
When people like Pat Caddell and Bernie Goldberg see this one has to hope that the days of the MSM are limited. Surely their viewership numbers reflect a lot of disgust with the quality of the “reporting”. Look at the LA Times – circulation – what -500-600K – out of the whole LA Basin and Orange County? probably easily a pool of 10 million.
I don’t think it is anything recent though – Reagan fought the same thing – but he talked right over them to the people – and the people heard the message.